May 2009 archive

Beating a Constitution to Death

This didn’t go without notice, I see.

WASHINGTON – President Obama told human rights advocates at the White House on Wednesday that he was mulling the need for a “preventive detention” system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried, two participants in the private session said.

It has been noted by John Cole, Glenn Greenwald, and who knows how many others.

So, as long we are beating our Constitution to death, I may as well put in my two cents…  

Healthcare fun

Five months ago after five hours of excruciating pain, a pain I never felt and couldn’t actually pinpoint the source of, I broke down and told my wife, fuck it, I gotta go to the emergency room. Now I’m a pretty tough cookie, over the years I have set and splinted numerous broken fingers on my own without ever seeing a doctor. I’ve used gauze and duct tape on cuts that should have had a dozen stitches, reset my own dislocated shoulder with the helpful cheering on of an old drinking buddy, and over the last 30 years have kept on working with dozens of different injuries that would have sidelined most people for weeks. I don’t say this as a form of self adulation to bask in some machismo bullshit, only to make the point that I can tolerate a lot of pain. It’s not like I had some wacky need to become this way, it’s just that when you are a single father of two kids for ten years like I was, doing a job that often results in injuries, you sometimes get hurt. And when the job conditions are such that if you don’t work, you don’t get paid, or collect benefits unless you are off for two or more weeks from that injury, you get up and work. Period.

So when I tell my wife that I have decided to go the the hospital, she knows I’m serious.

More after the jump….

Enforce The Laws, Mr. President

One of the president’s most basic duties is to uphold the laws of the land, laws that include those codified in international treaties to which the United States is signatory. Upholding and enforcing the laws requires investigating those suspected of crimes, indicting them if evidence warrants, and punishing them if found guilty in a fair courtroom.

Those who tortured – from the planning to the approval to the implementation – violated the law. Laws, and by extension the rights our laws both represent and protect, are only as good as their enforcement.

While the President has thus far done much to reverse the policies and precedents of his predecessor, and while in his speech today he perhaps for the first time gave some encouraging signs, he has not thus far made enforcing the law a priority in the case of torture, which is a war crime. Any failure to prosecute war criminals undermines the rights we all enjoy.

Hitler’s Willing Accomplices

The current issue of the German news magazine Der Spiegel takes the extradition of the Ukrainian concentration camp guard John (formerly Ivan) Demyanyuk from the US to face trial in Germany as an occasion to look at the support the Nazi holocaust policy received in their occupied territories (in English).

The article is at pains to not deflect from the fact that the Holocaust was a policy invented by Germany and Germans and implemented by Germany and Germans – but there can also be no doubt that, without active help from institutions and inhabitants of the occupied territories, the Holocaust’s breadth, scope and sheer efficiency would have been much diminished.

Four at Four

  1. The NY Times reports U.S. pullout is a condition in Afghan peace talks. “Leaders of the Taliban and other armed groups battling the Afghan government are talking to intermediaries about a potential peace agreement, with initial demands focused on a timetable for a withdrawal of American troops, according to Afghan leaders here and in Pakistan.”

    “The discussions have so far produced no agreements, since the insurgents appear to be insisting that any deal include an American promise to pull out – at the very time that the Obama administration is sending more combat troops to help reverse the deteriorating situation on the battlefield.”

  2. McClatchy reports Wall Street speculators may be to blame for spike in gasoline prices. “Big Wall Street banks such as Goldman Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley and others are able to sidestep the regulations that limit investments in commodities such as oil, and they’re investing on behalf of pension funds, endowments, hedge funds and other big institutional investors, in part as a hedge against rising inflation.”

Four at Four continues with an update from Pakistan, a deadly day in Iraq, and what happens if we do nothing about climate change.

Cheney Refuted

from Cheney’s attempt to poison the jury pool speech today

In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people

The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists…

Photobucket

The Unending Torture of Omar Khadr

.

after other efforts failed.

From MSNBC

Ali Soufan, testifying to a Senate panel behind a screen to hide his identity, said his team’s non-threatening interrogation approach elicited crucial information from al-Qaida operative Abu Zubaydah, including intelligence on “dirty bomb” terrorist Jose Padilla.

Soufan said his team had to step aside when CIA contractors took over. They began using harsh methods that caused Zubaydah to “shut down,” Soufan said, and his team had to be recalled the get the prisoner talking again.

Obama Green Lights Congressional Investigations and DOJ Prosecutions

Though, as usual, obliquely. After eight years of executive tyranny , the DOJ and Congress have been conditioned to follow the lead of the President rather than act as the independent bodies that they are. Perhaps this will help.

After all, Speaker Pelosi has full power to call for investigations, form committees, assign investigative powers in many ways. She has called for investigations, for a Truth Commission….but done nothing to pursue them. What was she waiting for? Perhaps a signal of permission from the POTUS. If so, I hope she was listening.

The relevant passage….

That is what I mean when I say that we need to focus on the future. I recognize that many still have a strong desire to focus on the past. When it comes to the actions of the last eight years, some Americans are angry; others want to re-fight debates that have been settled, most clearly at the ballot box in November. And I know that these debates lead directly to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through an Independent Commission.

I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws.

I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And our media culture feeds the impulses that lead to a good fight. Nothing will contribute more to that than an extended re-litigation of the last eight years. Already, we have seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides laying blame, and can distract us from focusing our time, our effort, and our politics on the challenges of the future.

We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends.  On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: “anything goes.” Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants – provided that it is a President with whom they agree.

Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don’t elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That is the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That is what makes the United States of America different as a nation.

I can stand here today, as President of the United States, and say without exception or equivocation that we do not torture, and that we will vigorously protect our people while forging a strong and durable framework that allows us to fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law. Make no mistake: if we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken over the past several years, then I will not be able to say that as President. And if we cannot stand for those core values, then we are not keeping faith with the documents that are enshrined in this hall.

Full text and video can be found here…

This is a job for… WACKY FAX!!!

A crude but effective way of getting one’s message across to Congress was born several years ago out of my involvement with CodePink: the Wacky Fax. Originally used to lobby Congress on matters of impeachment and war funding, the Wacky Faxen relied on humor to get their points across. Faxzero provides an easy and fast means to lobby Congress from your PC.

Today or tomorrow the Senate will vote on the war supplemental bill. In concert with UFPJ’s National Media Day of Action on Afghanistan I urge all two and a half of my readers (there’s evidently been some serious soul fragmentation out there) to join with me in the sending of this, my latest Wacky Fax creation.

The Senate has already turned back a request from the Obama administration for an EIGHTY MILLION dollar budget to close Guantanamo Bay; a decision I feel is wise since honestly I find it boggling that it would cost that much to close anything so illegal and immoral. The rest of the country is suffering and we simply cannot afford to continue paying extortionate prices to do the right thing with our military. I demand to see justification for such a ridiculous budget. Close the doors, turn off the lights, find the unfortunate people who pulled that duty work somewhere else, send the folks inside either to a fair trial or back home with some form of well deserved wergild, and GO AWAY. This costs that much, exactly why? I think we have a right to know. Let’s see the budget. Let’s see the line items. Let’s see who got the no-bid contracts.

When my family is hit with a car repair or medical bill, we don’t eat. I’ve had to miss meals so that my husband can afford his asthma medication. There have been months where I had sixty dollars to work with for the food budget. I won a small cash prize of $100 last summer from a web site that went straight into the fridge. And we’re actually doing well compared to some.

I think we have a right to know why these military/industrial complex gluttons continue to be allowed to fleece the American public for all they’re worth. I think we have a right to see exactly what’s getting pork barrelled and where this money – money WE NEED coming to US – continues to go. I’m tired of being forced to deal with parts of our government who are still behaving like mafiosi running a protection racket. As Memorial Day and July 4th near, my otherwise formidable ex-military stomach turns as the warmongers ratchet up the hype and trot out that tired old propagandist music. If I never hear “Wind Beneath My Wings” or “Proud to be an American” again it will be too soon. What’s to be proud of? What’s to celebrate? The achievement of MY American dream? The way my entire family’s DoD service has been twisted and turned against the American citizenry on every level, to include me and mine? Proud of sanctioned torture? Proud of warrantless wiretapping and domestic spying? Proud of our collapsing economy? Proud of a complete and total lack of accountability toward the war criminals who pulled off the most vicious swindle of this or ANY century in the entire history of our nation? Oh, PLEASE!

Enough already. Get your Wacky Faxen going on. Use the one I posted here, or make your own.

The President Called Us All Out To Work For The Rule Of Law

So the Dog had some vacation days which needed to be burned (use it or lose it vacation day policies suck!). This means he was able to watch the Presidents speech live on MSNBC. Since many of you will be at work, and won’t have gotten to see it the Dog thought that he would share what he saw with you, prior to the Traditional Media going over and over and over it, always spiced with the “Dueling Speeches” meme, since some old dried up War Criminal also gave a speech today. The Dog is not going to talk about the War Criminal’s speech at all.  

Human Rights Workers and Obama – A Meeting

Sam Stein is reporting over at HuffPo that President Obama met with several human rights and civil rights groups yesterday.  The information is still pretty sketchy as to what they brought up, but there’s more information on what Obama had to say:

Speaking to human rights officials on Wednesday, the president also left the door open for the future release of detainee abuse photos, saying that his administration’s current opposition to the release was dictated by immediate concern over the complications it could cause to America’s mission in Afghanistan.

More broadly, Obama said he was determined to build a new structure for executive oversight that would last beyond his presidency, preempting the problems he currently confronts from happening again.

“We talked a lot about the framework in which he is operating, and he talked about his strong desire to reestablish a system under which the executive is not exercising unfettered authority,” said Elisa Massimino, CEO of Human Rights First and an attendee at the Wednesday affair. “One of the chief differences between him and his predecessor was that he didn’t think he ought to be making these decisions in an ad-hoc, unaccountable way. And so he said that, in thinking through this, he was focused on how his successor might operate.”

Nothing new in Obama’s reasons for blocking the photos, except that he did say it was a matter of timing (which he did not say in his initial statement on why he was blocking them, claiming then that it was a matter of “protecting the troops”) — which makes me wonder, of course, what actions our military are planning in Afghanistan.

Obama, strawmen and the triangulation model of rhetoric

I wrote a comment on Orange and thought it was worth saying here.  I first became aware of this tactic from reading David Sirota and Big Tent Democrat in late 2006, when Obama was first talking about running.  I resisted in my understanding, however, because I wanted to believe.  It involves binary oppositions, strawmen and triangulation.

It’s the triangulation model of rhetoric.  President Obama does it a lot, again today.  He posits two extremes, well meaning, but wrong, and then places himself in the pragmatic middle.  It’s an easy rhetorical game.  You define the extremes in such a way that your position, no matter what it is, is the “reasonable” one.  Often the postions are mischaracterized, i.e., strawmen created, so that the middle position is obviously better than the well meaning but wrong headed “extremes.”

It’s very effective, but it is a rhetorical game.  Obama today:

We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: “anything goes.” Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants – provided that it is a President with whom they agree.

Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don’t elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That is the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That is what makes the United States of America different as a nation.

 

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo…

Obama’s been doing it for a long time.  It works, so long as no one critically analyzes what he says.  For example, was the Bush program really “anything goes”?  As bad as they were, they had some limits.  Granted, their limits were pretty damn low.  But I don’t see evidence of electricity applied to genitals, etc.  Bush did leave office.  I opposed Bush totally, but what he did was bad enough on its own.  See it for what it was.  He should have been impeached during his first term.  

Do the critics of Obama’s moderation on these issues really NEVER put national security over transparency?  That’s many of the people here he’s characterizing.  

Those are strawmen and Obama knows it.  

More, after the fold.  

What happened to Obama?

In view of the stunning policy reversals Obama has made in the last few weeks, we must conclude that something significant has happened to change the political positions held by Barak Obama. I believe that there are four possible explanations:

1. Obama has carefully reconsidered his positions and decided to turn away from a lifetime commitment to populist and liberal beliefs to embrace the governing philosophy of the Bush administration.

2. Obama has been persuaded that he must continue Bush administration policies to raise political capital for reforms he wishes to pass in Congress (e.g., national health care).

3. Obama has been coerced by blackmail or some similar mechanism into continuing Bush/Cheney policies.

4. Obama was always a “Manchurian candidate” of the plutocracy, and he deliberately misrepresented his positions during the campaign.

I am leaning toward #4. What do you think?

Load more